"To stress again, it is about trying to get effective communication by ensuring words are going to be understood by the reader rather than inventing your own personal meaning which can do nothing but harm communication."

Well I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, inventing personal meanings (usually pretty mystical and impenetrable ones, deliberately made so in order to add gravitas and stave off the sceptics, of course) for God is the sine qua non of religion.

"You say I fail to answer the questions you pose,...But let's have one last attempt at the impossible....

Did God create the universe or not?
As always, you fall into the 'excluded middle' logical error.
The statement 'To the best of our understanding the universe came into existence with any need for God' is true. God is not needed for any such explanation. I'm not sure if you are happy with that, but even if you are you won't be happy with the next bit. Nevertheless, it is also true to say I believe God created the Universe."

Ha ha ha. Three lines of bullshit, then, finally, the simple answer to the simple question. You are no less a creationist than pete. Not an ignoramus or a mouthpiece or a science-denier as such, unlike him, but still a creationist. The next step is to ask yourself whether you have to admit to that through gritted teeth in order to give God at least some role in things. Unless he's the creator, he isn't really much use, is he? Oops, unless he's merely the "essence..."


"Is it better to tell children lies than tell them the truth?
Of course not: tell the truth. No question about that.
But does it then follow that we have a common understanding of what is a lie? No, we don't."

Well let's investigate. Here's just some of the things children are told.

There is definitely a God (Our Father who art in heaven). No doubt in that prayer, and they all have to learn it off by heart. Lots of other prayers and hymns contain similar unchallenged assertions, not just about God but also about some of his baggage, the Virgin Mary for example.

Jesus was born to a virgin.

We are all born in sin because a woman stole one apple from God and Jesus had to die to save us.

Jesus could raise the dead, feed five thousand people on a few scraps, could predict exactly what was going to happen when a cock crowed, and could come back to life even though he'd bled to death two days earlier.

There is a heaven that you will get into only if you're good.

If you do bad things, but not too bad, you will have to be tortured for a while in purgatory before you get into heaven, unless you're lucky enough to have just come out of confession before you die or if someone has earned you an indulgence by chanting some prayers, perhaps by going in and out of a church a few times or doing a few decades of the Rosary.

When we want to make good Catholics into saints, it has to be proven that miracles connected with them took place first.

You were made by God. No argument. It's the first statement in the catechism.

Now you say it's better to tell children the truth. I can't conclusively demonstrate that all the above are definitely not true, though I can say that if you believe at least some of them you must be deluded. What is definite is that not a single one can be shown to be even remotely true. Yet this is what children are taught. We've had a lot of shilly-shallying around this in this and lots of other threads. You've just told me that it's better to tell children the truth. Well here's how you can tell them all this stuff and still be telling the truth. Are you listening?

"This is a list of some of the things that some Catholics believe. When you believe something, you don't need to ask anyone to show that it's true. But, when you look at that list, you might be surprised at some of the beliefs in it. Some of them look like magic and others are about God, or Jesus, or Mary, people we're not sure were ever real at all. When you're told about something unexpected, such as about a man who could come back to life, the best thing is to ask for more information. If you think like a scientist thinks, you probably won't believe anything that seems unusual unless the person telling you about it can show you some evidence. Your science teacher can tell you what we mean by evidence and give you some examples of what is useful evidence and what isn't. You don't have to prove anything, but you need enough information to make up your own mind. Bright people never let other people make up their minds for them. If the person telling you can't give you the evidence, he may be trying to trick you, so it's best to be polite yet suspicious, even if that person is an authority figure such as your dad, a priest or even me. If a belief looks too complicated to understand, you can always wait until you're older before going back to investigate it again. And no-one is forcing you to be a Catholic, and no-one will think badly of you if you decide not to be one."

And finally:

"... you seem to want to make this some sort of mental wrestling match between us. I'm not interested, sorry. I present my views..."

Well I present my views too but I also want to tease out your take. I'm honest enough to admit that I'm on the lookout for your inconsistencies, but that's what argument is all about (in saying that, I'm expecting some philosophical stick, of course). I tend to find that the inconsistencies, woolly thinking and vaguenesses that emanate from people of faith are so legion that the debate is more a walk in the park than a wrestling match, actually.